RyanS2

Well, my complaint with Holding is that while he is willing to say "non-scholar" to the point of just being annoying, he seems to forget his only academic credential is a lousy librarian degree. How does that make him any more accredited than Wells I'll never know.

Next, for example, his thing on Dionysus. He picks at a few choice arguments, but ignores most of the larger criticisms. For all his wind-blowing, he cites a mind-blowing 9 sources, three of them from the same book. Two of them are only for the opening quotes, they aren't referenced again. So, what's his big hub-bub about his scholarship? It's non-existent in any form, it's ad hominem's compiled with non sequitors, compiled with scanty references in a snotty fashion that is designed to make his opponents look like idiots, and it's so blatantly puerile that I thought it was a parody the first time I read through it. As an example, when he references James Still, he only points out Glenn Miller's critiques and makes a few snide comments about James, but never once does he link any of James' articles in response to Miller, to show that James is a very intelligent man and has some good responses. Likewise, he never links to any of his opponents arguments, he seems to assume his diatribes will suffice.

I also love how he tries to pump himself up as a linguist, but he failed French, (Cf: His debate against Farrell Till on this website), he doesn't know Greek, (Cf: James Still, where Holding mangles a Greek declension in the singular form), and he probably doesn't know Hebrew, except he never uses it extensively enough to show his lack of utility in it.

I never actually counted how many sources I cite on my Dionysus argument, but it's quite a few more than 9.

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/dionysus.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/dionysus.html</a>

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/dionysos.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/dionysos.html</a>

I sent a copy of it to Glenn Miller about two months ago because he uses David Leeming to say that most saviors aren't virgin-born, while in his newest book, ("Myth: A Biography"), he explicitly states that Jesus is mainly mythical, and that most saviors are virgin-born. It seems to be a pertinent update to me.

Concerning Acharya S, I've been talking to her for about a year and a half now, and here's my thoughts on her and her book:

One, she works in reverse. For example, if I'm really getting into a subject, I read the newest books published first, then dig through their footnotes and references and find older books, and it goes on. She seems to find the oldest books first, and not realizing that some parts of them are outdated, uses them. As a prime example, she uses Barbara Walker, (who's very unreliable, though she occasionally strikes gold), to say that there are no fragments of the Gospels dating before the fourth century. I believe there's either eight or nine of them that are prior that we now possess, though they aren't extensive.

Two: However, I know why she uses old sources. One is for monetary purposes, old books can be used without the hassle of calling up book publishers and authors and getting copyright approval, so on and so forth. The same reason why the books that are on infidels.org were written long ago, they're not copyright protected. The other reason is that some people have accused the Christ-myth position of being recent, she wants to show it goes back at least two centuries ago, if not further counting some Gnostic factions.

Three: She never makes any claims about aliens, she uses Zechariah Zitchin, (I don't think that's how his name is spelled but I'm not looking it up), who is the foremost proponent of the idea that aliens landed long ago and taught the Sumerians what they knew. She only uses him three times, and they are all only on things that he saw like a zodiac arrangement on the floor of a building. Likewise, she uses Blavatsky two to four times, who also believes that aliens landed and taught mankind. Acharya herself never makes any statements pro/con about aliens landing here. She even has a part of her website which is against Zitchin's theories on the Annunaki. (I also am not checking the spelling of that either).

Four Her problem is that her Christ-conspiracy does have too many conspiracies. For instance, she uses David Ullaynes, (again, that's not the spelling of his name), as a source, but his whole theory is that the Zodiac was such a revolutionary find that a religion, (Mithrainism) was formed because of it. She assumes that it was known long prior to that, but kept a secret by ruling elite priests.

Likewise, she assumes the existence of the FreeMasons since the time of Christ, despite the fact that we know they are only a few centuries old.

I liked the book because it reintroduced me to some old mythologies and some ancient (100 years and older) perspectives on it, but it really needs more recent scholars quoted on it.

RyanS2

Toto, I doubt you'll consider me an expert on nutrician, but here's an article I wrote on it on a website I used to own:

"The ketogenic diet works off the principle of ketosis, which is increased blood ketones from fat breakdown, the system of conversion is also known as gluconeogenesis, (using non-carbohydrate sources of energy). When your body can not use glycogen or convert amino acids into glycogen, it begins using ketones from stored fat supplies. Supposedly, once ketosis begins, you will lose weight because the high amounts of ketones in the blood suppress hunger, thereby reducing the amount of calories that you are eating, and therefore creating the almighty calorie deficit, meaning you lose weight. In order to create ketosis, you must limit the amount of carbohydrate's entering the system, and increase the intake of high fat/protein foods.

Because you are now eating less carbohydrates, you now have less glycogen stores. With every molecule of glycogen, there are two molecules of water attached to it. When your body begins losing the glycogen stores in the muscles and liver, the water attached to those molecules goes with it rapidly. Furthermore, restricting the amount of carbohydrates that are being intaken limits the ability of the kidneys to concentrate urine, leading to an increased excretion of sodium. All these things combine and your body is in a very severe state of diuresis. Because of the amount of urea that your system is now producing, and the other diuresis factors, it is strongly urged that you drink high quantities of water.

Most people who are dieting use the weight scale as the measure of their desired physical status. Because of the diuresis, they lose weight very quickly, which is initially encouraging. However, the fat stores within the body are almost completely untouched, and your body is still in the early stages of calorie deficiency. When the dieter hits the plateau where their body has compensated for lost water, most get discouraged. Those who continue with the diet may/may not lose weight, depending upon whether or not they have actually achieved any sort of calorie deficit.
As far as the question of health concerns, this diet poses quite a few. For anyone with heart disease, hypertension, kidney disease, and diabetes, this diet could prove very detrimental to their overall health. Complications associated with low carb, high fat and protein diets include, but are not limited to, ketoacidosis, dehydration, electrolyte loss, calcium depletion, weakness (due to a lack of glycogen stores), nausea (due to high levels of fat in the blood), kidney problems, and difficulty concentrating. Another thing to consider is that the brain can run off of ketones, but that is very low grade fuel. The brain primarily runs off of glycogen stores. If you are running off of ketones, how effectively can you concentrate? You might also consider that this kind of diet leads to vitamin and mineral deficiencies. The person accredited with founding the diet, Dr. Atkins, the author of both the old and new versions of Diet Revolution, openly states that his diet does not supply adequate amounts of vitamins and minerals, and he recommends that people on the diet take supplements. Gout is another possible side effect, as the uric acid in the blood increases. As the levels of uric acid goes up, it competes with ketones for excretion. This increases the risk of kidney failure. Dr. Atkins warns that people with kidney problems shouldn't follow his diet, but it is unclear whether or not the diet can actually cause any of these problems in otherwise healthy people."

Concerning it versus traditional diet, (Do you mean the Standard American Diet or the typical diet prescribed by dieticians?), I can't tell you. It has its short-comings, to be sure, but all diets do.

Ted Hoffman

Darkside spirit
Can you give references to Acharya S's claim of alien visitations?
It was on a radio show and some listener claimed to have been visited by some beings...and Acharya said shed been visited too and that those beings talk to her. When a "fan" confronted her, she said she meant human beings.
J P Holding closed in on it like US army on finding Osama. J P Holding has that account on his Tekton site in the link below.

and fails to sufficiently substantiate her statements (time and again we see accusations of "forgery", "interpolation" etc, without any real backing). I happen to think she's right, but her lack of backing (probably due to space constraints) puts her in a vulnerable position.
J. P Holding says something similar concerning her work. He calls the book (Christ Conspiracy) a "muck farm"
<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_SFS.html#sham" target="_blank">Right Here</a> and wades through it with arguments laden with sarcasm and derision. I bet if he could use the book as toilet paper, he could do it in front of the cameras. I had no idea a scholar can be so childish.

CX
Personally I think there is insufficient evidence to take a stand either way.
Earl Doherty doesn't think the evidence is insufficient. He has made a stand. So have many other secular scholars like G. A Wells, Richard Carrier etc.
One can never get "negative evidence" concerning the existence of a historical person anyway. Those who choose to be indecisive will remain so untill the christ mythers have made it "common sense" that Jesus never existed. Lack of positive evidence for the existence of someone strongly implies the person did not exist.

Berean
You won't find many arguments against the Christ-myth idea from "serious scholars", largely because mainstream NT scholars consider the idea of no real merit and ignore it.
Huh, huh, escapism might work for them for social reasons (just like consensus in HJ scolarship is for social, not intellectual/ academic reasons). To try to belittle the questionof whether Jesus existed or NOT, especially for christian scholars, is dishonest indeed. And in any case, its not true, Josh McDowell and other Xstial apologetics have beno over backwards to try to prove existence of a Historical Jesus. At least Eusebius thought it was important. To abandon and boycott the issue is escapism at its best.

The Tektonics material is likely the most extensive on the web (and I would be interested to know what you consider "weak" in JPH's arguments)
He simply quibbles, prevaricates, ridicules and rehashes the old arguments again and again (argumentum ad nauseum). That, is his approach.
I cannot address a specific one now because you might say "Aah, that one? I also find it weak". So, why dont you pick one you find "powerful" and paste it here, then we can tackle it from there?

Darkside Spirit
Perhaps the scholastic disregard towards the Jesus myth theory comes from the fact that most of the "New Testament scholars" are Christians?
Secular scholars have overtaken their chrisitan counterparts with fresh perspectives. Burton Mack is a good example.

Having a religious axe to grind robs Xsian scholars of a critical eye and the NT scholarship has not been very serious in such circles.

As PeterKirby says:
All the good atheist biblical scholars are either Jewish or ex-Christian.

Be back later

Benjamin Franklin

Minor point but I presume you mean non-Christian rather than atheist as I don't think all Jewish can be classified as atheists

Tjun Kiat

Peter Kirby

I really mean that next to none of the good biblical scholars are Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Confucian, or born atheist. It seems to me that some kind of personal attachment to the tradition, either past or present, is required for the kind of dedication that scholarship demands. The rest say S.F.W.

I mean that some Jews are atheist, albeit non-orthodox, not that all Jews are atheist.

On the Upper West Side lived an assimilated Jew who was a militant atheist. But he sent his son to Trinity School because, despite its denominational roots, it's a great school, and completely secular.

After a month, the boy comes home and says casually, "By the way Dad, do you know what _Trinity_ means? It means the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

The father can barely control his rage. He seizes his son by the shoulders and declares, "Danny, I'm going to tell you something now and I want you never to forget it. There is only one G-d -- and we don't believe in Him!"

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~jewishjokes/jew-atheist.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~jewishjokes/jew-atheist.htm</a>

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I thought I should clarify that I mean 'raised atheist and lifelong atheist', not born atheist. Some claim that all are born atheist.

best,
Peter Kirby

Tharmas

I can't let a reference to Acharya S go by without mentioning that that she is the founder of the Institute for Historical Accuracy, a division of the American Anthropological Research Institute (AARF).

God is Borg! You will be assimilated!

Cheers!

Vorkosigan

<a href="http://www.trueseekers.org/" target="_blank">AARF's website is here.</a> Hmm....

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

RyanS2
Well, my complaint with Holding is that while he is willing to say "non-scholar" to the point of just being annoying, he seems to forget his only academic credential is a lousy librarian degree. How does that make him any more accredited than Wells I'll never know.
I believe that a proper meaning of scolarship should be based on the number of articles/ books published by a particular individual concerning the particular area.
I have seen P.DHs and professors who can not formulate coherent arguments. What I mean to say, is that scolarship should be based on someones' works, not the medals(certificates/ Degrees) they hold.

Thanks for the insight on Acharya S, I have read Alan Alford (Gods of the New Millenium) and he uses Sitchin heavily. Anyone here having thoughts on Alford and his intervention Theory? When I read Return of the Gods (2000), Alan Alford was propounding that the ancient religions (Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian etc) were exploded planet cults. He used the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, the OT, Ethiopian Books and Egyptian texts to construct the theory that a planet exploded and fecundated the earth with human life. The Annunaki(the black heades ones) were supposedly the fragments of the exploded planet which fecundated fertile earth. He also brings in the idea that in Genesis God was actually the "heavenly" planet. Further on, he explains why in Exodus, Moses was a planet and so on. Its really quite a stretch and its outlandish and even far-fetched. I have never known what to make of it. I never even finnished reading the book - My head was exploding with questions as I approached the end.
I will pick up the book again when there is peace in my head.

PeterKirby
Some claim that all are born atheist
So we are all born knowing that there is a God and he loves us? What happened to the "tabla rassa?" that Kant, Hegel and Descartes talked about?. I thought theism is conditioned, NOT inborn. Care to elaborate Kirby?

CX

I hate to quibble, but this strikes me as rather inaccurate. There are roughly 3 MSS fragments dating to before 200 C.E. There are another 3 or 4 dating to the turn of the 3rd century (200 C.E.). and somewhere around 27 or 28 dating solidly before 300 C.E. for a total of about 35 or so MSS before the 4th century codices like Sinaiticus. While it is true that many or most of those are quite fragmentary, some are not and contain upwards of 90% of the books they attest. GJn, Revelation and many of the authentic Pauline epistles are nearly complete. The Bodmer papyrus p66 for example contains nearly all of GJn and dates to around 200 C.E.